Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Caplis Report - Barack Obama
Follow the lik above to a great research report on Liberal Democrat Barack Obama.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Imitators - By Thomas Sowell
If anyone suggested that Tiger Woods should try to be more like other golfers, people would question the sanity of whoever made that suggestion.
Why should Tiger Woods try to be more like Phil Mickelson? If Tiger turned around and tried to golf left-handed, like Mickelson, he probably wouldn't be as good as Mickelson, much less as good as he is golfing the way he does right-handed.
Yet there are those who think that the United States should follow policies more like those in Europe, often with no stronger reason than the fact that Europeans follow such policies. For some Americans, it is considered chic to be like Europeans.
If Europeans have higher minimum wage laws and more welfare state benefits, then we should have higher minimum wage laws and more welfare state benefits, according to such people. If Europeans restrict pharmaceutical companies' patents and profits, then we should do the same.
Some Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court even seem to think that they should incorporate ideas from European laws in interpreting American laws.
Before we start imitating someone, we should first find out whether the results that they get are better than the results that we get. Across a very wide spectrum, the United States has been doing better than Europe for a very long time.
By comparison with most of the rest of the world, Europe is doing fine. But they are like Phil Mickelson, not Tiger Woods.
Minimum wage laws have the same effects in Europe as they have had in other places around the world. They price many low-skilled and inexperienced workers out of a job.
Because minimum wage laws are more generous in Europe than in the United States, they lead to chronically higher rates of unemployment in general and longer periods of unemployment than in the United States-- but especially among younger, less experienced and less skilled workers.
Unemployment rates of 20 percent or more for young workers are common in a number of European countries. Among workers who are both younger and minority workers, such as young Muslims in France, unemployment rates are estimated at about 40 percent.
The American minimum wage laws do enough damage without our imitating European minimum wage laws. The last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate in the United States was 1930.
The next year, the first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act, was passed. One of its sponsors explicitly stated that the purpose was to keep blacks from taking jobs from whites.
No one says things like that any more-- which is a shame, because the effect of a minimum wage law does not depend on what anybody says. Blacks in general, and younger blacks in particular, are the biggest losers from such laws, just as younger and minority workers are in Europe.
Those Americans who are pushing us toward the kinds of policies that Europeans impose on pharmaceutical companies show not the slightest interest in what the consequences of such laws have been.
One consequence is that even European pharmaceutical companies do much of their research and development of new medications in the United States, in order to take advantage of American patent protections and freedom from price controls.
These are the very policies that the European imitators want us to change.
It is not a coincidence that such a high proportion of the major pharmaceutical drugs are developed in the United States. If we kill the goose that lays the golden egg, as the Europeans have done, both we and the Europeans-- as well as the rest of the world -- will be worse off, because there are few other places for such medications to be developed.
There are a lot of diseases still waiting for a cure, or even for relief for those suffering from those diseases. People stricken with these diseases will pay the price for blind imitation of Europe.
The United States leads the world in too many areas for us to start imitating those who are trailing behind.
Why should Tiger Woods try to be more like Phil Mickelson? If Tiger turned around and tried to golf left-handed, like Mickelson, he probably wouldn't be as good as Mickelson, much less as good as he is golfing the way he does right-handed.
Yet there are those who think that the United States should follow policies more like those in Europe, often with no stronger reason than the fact that Europeans follow such policies. For some Americans, it is considered chic to be like Europeans.
If Europeans have higher minimum wage laws and more welfare state benefits, then we should have higher minimum wage laws and more welfare state benefits, according to such people. If Europeans restrict pharmaceutical companies' patents and profits, then we should do the same.
Some Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court even seem to think that they should incorporate ideas from European laws in interpreting American laws.
Before we start imitating someone, we should first find out whether the results that they get are better than the results that we get. Across a very wide spectrum, the United States has been doing better than Europe for a very long time.
By comparison with most of the rest of the world, Europe is doing fine. But they are like Phil Mickelson, not Tiger Woods.
Minimum wage laws have the same effects in Europe as they have had in other places around the world. They price many low-skilled and inexperienced workers out of a job.
Because minimum wage laws are more generous in Europe than in the United States, they lead to chronically higher rates of unemployment in general and longer periods of unemployment than in the United States-- but especially among younger, less experienced and less skilled workers.
Unemployment rates of 20 percent or more for young workers are common in a number of European countries. Among workers who are both younger and minority workers, such as young Muslims in France, unemployment rates are estimated at about 40 percent.
The American minimum wage laws do enough damage without our imitating European minimum wage laws. The last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate in the United States was 1930.
The next year, the first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act, was passed. One of its sponsors explicitly stated that the purpose was to keep blacks from taking jobs from whites.
No one says things like that any more-- which is a shame, because the effect of a minimum wage law does not depend on what anybody says. Blacks in general, and younger blacks in particular, are the biggest losers from such laws, just as younger and minority workers are in Europe.
Those Americans who are pushing us toward the kinds of policies that Europeans impose on pharmaceutical companies show not the slightest interest in what the consequences of such laws have been.
One consequence is that even European pharmaceutical companies do much of their research and development of new medications in the United States, in order to take advantage of American patent protections and freedom from price controls.
These are the very policies that the European imitators want us to change.
It is not a coincidence that such a high proportion of the major pharmaceutical drugs are developed in the United States. If we kill the goose that lays the golden egg, as the Europeans have done, both we and the Europeans-- as well as the rest of the world -- will be worse off, because there are few other places for such medications to be developed.
There are a lot of diseases still waiting for a cure, or even for relief for those suffering from those diseases. People stricken with these diseases will pay the price for blind imitation of Europe.
The United States leads the world in too many areas for us to start imitating those who are trailing behind.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
North American Union
Just a reminder as to whom we are bowing to...
Old Story but same ole song!
Just remember as we sleep our rights will be driven over and most will wonder what hit them!
Old Story but same ole song!
Just remember as we sleep our rights will be driven over and most will wonder what hit them!
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
T.F.O.I.
Project Objective
Terror-Free Oil Initiative is dedicated to encouraging Americans to buy fuel that originated from countries that do not export or finance terrorism.
We promote those companies that acquire their fuel supply from nations outside the Middle East and expose those companies that do not.
We educate the American public about the oil-terrorism connection and press those in power to take the necessary steps to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
Terror-Free Oil Initiative is dedicated to encouraging Americans to buy fuel that originated from countries that do not export or finance terrorism.
We promote those companies that acquire their fuel supply from nations outside the Middle East and expose those companies that do not.
We educate the American public about the oil-terrorism connection and press those in power to take the necessary steps to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Again I hear the notion of penalizing gas companies for their 10-15 profit margin that they have always had.....SUPPLY AND DEMAND DAMN IT!
It gets really old hearing people wanting to hit up the Oil companies and steal their profits....supply....demand....I guess nobody has heard of this, or conveniently forgets.
Last I checked Nelson D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) helped build our country to what it is today by means of capitalism spawning the industrial revolution. Vaulting us to the top of the world economies.
Here are some consumption numbers from 1980-2006...
I don't know about you...but I would be really pissed if I put in thousands of dollars of investments into a company for the government to take away my share profits...HORSESHIT!
FYI...
The laws of supply and demand state that the equilibrium market price and quantity of a commodity is at the intersection of consumer demand and producer supply.
Quantity supplied equals quantity demanded, that is, equilibrium.
Equilibrium implies that price and quantity will remain there if it begins there.
If the price for a good is below equilibrium, consumers demand more of the good than producers are prepared to supply. This defines a shortage of the good. A shortage results in the price being bid up. Producers will increase the price until it reaches equilibrium.
If the price for a good is above equilibrium, there is a surplus of the good. Producers are motivated to eliminate the surplus by lowering the price. The price falls until it reaches equilibrium.
Last I checked Nelson D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) helped build our country to what it is today by means of capitalism spawning the industrial revolution. Vaulting us to the top of the world economies.
Here are some consumption numbers from 1980-2006...
I don't know about you...but I would be really pissed if I put in thousands of dollars of investments into a company for the government to take away my share profits...HORSESHIT!
FYI...
The laws of supply and demand state that the equilibrium market price and quantity of a commodity is at the intersection of consumer demand and producer supply.
Quantity supplied equals quantity demanded, that is, equilibrium.
Equilibrium implies that price and quantity will remain there if it begins there.
If the price for a good is below equilibrium, consumers demand more of the good than producers are prepared to supply. This defines a shortage of the good. A shortage results in the price being bid up. Producers will increase the price until it reaches equilibrium.
If the price for a good is above equilibrium, there is a surplus of the good. Producers are motivated to eliminate the surplus by lowering the price. The price falls until it reaches equilibrium.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Obama says Bush falsely accuses him of appeasement
My favorite quote from the article is from press secretary Dana Perino. ----- Mark
"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accused President Bush on Thursday of launching a "false political attack" with a comment about appeasing terrorists and radicals.
The Illinois senator interpreted the remark as a slam against him but the White House denied that Bush's words were in any way directed at Obama, who has said as president he would be willing to personally meet with Iran's leaders and those of other regimes the United States has deemed rogue.
In a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Obama responded with a statement, seizing on Bush's remarks even as it was unclear to whom the president was referring.
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in the statement his aides distributed. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
The White House said Bush's comment wasn't a reference to Obama.
"It is not," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. "I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."
The debate over whether the president should directly negotiate with rogue leaders has been one of the most prominent issue differences in the race for the Democratic nomination. Obama says he would meet with heads of state in places like Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton says those meetings could be used for propaganda and her first response will be outreach through other diplomatic channels.
As Obama inches closer to clinching the Democratic nomination, he's spent far more time assailing Republicans and the GOP's nominee-in- waiting, John McCain, than he has going after Clinton. By assailing Bush, Obama sent a signal that he's strong enough to take on the sitting president and the incumbent party—and counter the notion fueled by Clinton that she would be the stronger Democratic general election candidate.
Bush, for his part, mostly refrained from directly injecting himself into the presidential race through the Republican primary. When McCain clinched the nomination in March, however, the two appeared together in the White House Rose Garden. Since then, he has talked up McCain frequently.
When it comes to the Democratic race, the president typically avoids naming names but he has publicly disagreed with the positions of the Democratic front-runners.
He has, for example, strongly disagreed with Obama's expressed willingness to meet the leaders of U.S. adversaries such as Cuba and Iran. And, McCain has criticized Obama directly and repeatedly for saying that he would meet with Cuba's leader, Raul Castro, without preconditions.
"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accused President Bush on Thursday of launching a "false political attack" with a comment about appeasing terrorists and radicals.
The Illinois senator interpreted the remark as a slam against him but the White House denied that Bush's words were in any way directed at Obama, who has said as president he would be willing to personally meet with Iran's leaders and those of other regimes the United States has deemed rogue.
In a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Obama responded with a statement, seizing on Bush's remarks even as it was unclear to whom the president was referring.
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in the statement his aides distributed. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
The White House said Bush's comment wasn't a reference to Obama.
"It is not," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. "I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."
The debate over whether the president should directly negotiate with rogue leaders has been one of the most prominent issue differences in the race for the Democratic nomination. Obama says he would meet with heads of state in places like Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton says those meetings could be used for propaganda and her first response will be outreach through other diplomatic channels.
As Obama inches closer to clinching the Democratic nomination, he's spent far more time assailing Republicans and the GOP's nominee-in- waiting, John McCain, than he has going after Clinton. By assailing Bush, Obama sent a signal that he's strong enough to take on the sitting president and the incumbent party—and counter the notion fueled by Clinton that she would be the stronger Democratic general election candidate.
Bush, for his part, mostly refrained from directly injecting himself into the presidential race through the Republican primary. When McCain clinched the nomination in March, however, the two appeared together in the White House Rose Garden. Since then, he has talked up McCain frequently.
When it comes to the Democratic race, the president typically avoids naming names but he has publicly disagreed with the positions of the Democratic front-runners.
He has, for example, strongly disagreed with Obama's expressed willingness to meet the leaders of U.S. adversaries such as Cuba and Iran. And, McCain has criticized Obama directly and repeatedly for saying that he would meet with Cuba's leader, Raul Castro, without preconditions.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Defending Big Oil
With gas prices topping four dollars a gallon in some regions of the country, now may not be the best time to say something positive about "big oil," but here goes anyway.
Where is it written that the cost for a product or service should be frozen in place and in time, never to rise again, or to rise at a pace commensurate with our incomes? People who think this way know little to nothing about supply and demand and less than nothing about the profit motive. That's because at least three generations have been raised on the notion of entitlement, and when one feels entitled to something, one believes someone else should pay.
Senate Democrats last week sought to ingratiate themselves with voters, while doing nothing to produce more energy, with a familiar attack on "big oil." They want to repeal $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies over 10 years and on top of that impose a windfall profit tax on companies that don't invest in new energy sources. This is political expediency at its worst.
Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron, told me it's a myth that oil companies are not investing in new energy sources. He says last year alone, Chevron spent $20 billion exploring new sources of energy.
Robertson said President Bush's trip this week to Saudi Arabia is "highly embarrassing" because he is "calling on the Saudis to produce more oil when we are not doing it ourselves." The last refinery built in America was in 1976. Tighter government regulations are the main reason. That's how unserious we are about our energy "crisis."
Robertson said there would be plenty of oil available to the United States if the oil companies were allowed to get it: "Eighty-five percent of offshore oil is off-limits." Responding to objections to offshore drilling by environmentalists and their allies in Congress, Robertson noted that some of the strongest pro-environment nations in Europe - he mentions Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom - lease offshore locations for oil exploration. The technology has become so good, he said, that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, "one thousand offshore wells were destroyed (in the Gulf of Mexico), but not one leaked." Australia, he said, has allowed offshore drilling for 40 years without any environmental damage.
In addition to the sinking value of the dollar, here is the main problem: According to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40 percent since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30 percent.
According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America - 112 billion barrels - to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn't, but the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments. Because most of the oil remains "off-limits," we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil.
No, we can't "drill our way out" of our addiction to oil, but we can make the transition to other energy sources easier while lessening our dependence on foreign oil and propping up dictators who use our money to subsidize terrorists. A slow transition will also give us time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day, saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs.
The specter of a president of the United States going hat-in-hand to Saudi Arabia to plead for more (and more expensive) oil from the dictatorship that underwrites an extreme form of Islam that is out to kill us is obscene. President Bush ought to be rallying Americans, not embracing people who don't allow women to drive cars.
Where is it written that the cost for a product or service should be frozen in place and in time, never to rise again, or to rise at a pace commensurate with our incomes? People who think this way know little to nothing about supply and demand and less than nothing about the profit motive. That's because at least three generations have been raised on the notion of entitlement, and when one feels entitled to something, one believes someone else should pay.
Senate Democrats last week sought to ingratiate themselves with voters, while doing nothing to produce more energy, with a familiar attack on "big oil." They want to repeal $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies over 10 years and on top of that impose a windfall profit tax on companies that don't invest in new energy sources. This is political expediency at its worst.
Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron, told me it's a myth that oil companies are not investing in new energy sources. He says last year alone, Chevron spent $20 billion exploring new sources of energy.
Robertson said President Bush's trip this week to Saudi Arabia is "highly embarrassing" because he is "calling on the Saudis to produce more oil when we are not doing it ourselves." The last refinery built in America was in 1976. Tighter government regulations are the main reason. That's how unserious we are about our energy "crisis."
Robertson said there would be plenty of oil available to the United States if the oil companies were allowed to get it: "Eighty-five percent of offshore oil is off-limits." Responding to objections to offshore drilling by environmentalists and their allies in Congress, Robertson noted that some of the strongest pro-environment nations in Europe - he mentions Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom - lease offshore locations for oil exploration. The technology has become so good, he said, that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, "one thousand offshore wells were destroyed (in the Gulf of Mexico), but not one leaked." Australia, he said, has allowed offshore drilling for 40 years without any environmental damage.
In addition to the sinking value of the dollar, here is the main problem: According to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40 percent since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30 percent.
According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America - 112 billion barrels - to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn't, but the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments. Because most of the oil remains "off-limits," we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil.
No, we can't "drill our way out" of our addiction to oil, but we can make the transition to other energy sources easier while lessening our dependence on foreign oil and propping up dictators who use our money to subsidize terrorists. A slow transition will also give us time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day, saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs.
The specter of a president of the United States going hat-in-hand to Saudi Arabia to plead for more (and more expensive) oil from the dictatorship that underwrites an extreme form of Islam that is out to kill us is obscene. President Bush ought to be rallying Americans, not embracing people who don't allow women to drive cars.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Energy and the future
State to study economic implications of overhaul of oil and gas regulations
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2008/04/28/042908_1b_DNR_analysis.html
Less reliance on coal could be costly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/25/less-reliance-coal-could-be-costly/
Start Drilling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042902394.html
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2008/04/28/042908_1b_DNR_analysis.html
Less reliance on coal could be costly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/25/less-reliance-coal-could-be-costly/
Start Drilling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042902394.html
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Who we elect is important
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Part 1:
In just one year. Remember the election in 2006? Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%. Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen: 1) Consumer confidence plummet;2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon; 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase); 4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses); 5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars; 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. America voted for change in 2006, and we got it! Remember it's Congress that makes law, taxes and spends, not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.
Quote of the Day........'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama
Part 2:
Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing. www.taxfoundation.org/publications/sho w/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999
Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Married making 125K – tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates.
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
PART 3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.Verify at http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.Verify at http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the USVerify at: http://transcri pts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
Are we THAT stupid?If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.
Tell all of your friends, and if you know any, the Democrats that will listen!
Part 1:
In just one year. Remember the election in 2006? Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%. Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen: 1) Consumer confidence plummet;2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon; 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase); 4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses); 5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars; 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. America voted for change in 2006, and we got it! Remember it's Congress that makes law, taxes and spends, not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.
Quote of the Day........'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama
Part 2:
Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing. www.taxfoundation.org/publications/sho w/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999
Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Married making 125K – tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates.
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
PART 3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.Verify at http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.Verify at http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the USVerify at: http://transcri pts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
Are we THAT stupid?If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.
Tell all of your friends, and if you know any, the Democrats that will listen!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Global warming rage lets global hunger grow
This is very ironic considering the UN is one of the biggest Global Warming pushers.
The UN says it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol. That is enough to feed a child for a year. Last week, the UN predicted "massacres" unless the biofuel policy is halted.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Senator John McCain for President
I received the following endorsement in an email. I don't know who wrote this but I needed to post it
After long and serious thought, I have decided to endorse Senator John McCain for President.
I have always voted for the person and have not voted for anyone because some political party was telling me who I should vote for.
We all know the choices by now and, that said, I do believe that the process of selecting a chief executive is deeply flawed. The words 'money' and 'special intersts' come to mind, among many others.
Here's the way I see it:
Barack Obama, you are a fine public speaker. You are also an extremely liberal Senator from the State of Illinois, which has a long and rich history of political corruption of the first magnitude. You are indeed a child of that system.
You have finally insulted my intelligence far beyond my capacity to tolerate your insults. It has nothing at all to do with your skin color. As a matter of fact, it would be so COOL to finally have an African-American for President. What a great statement that would be to the entire world that we are indeed the greatest country on earth ! But, unfortunately, General Colin Powell is not running, and YOU are NOT the man for this job !
Barack baby, you want me to believe that you have never heard the sermons of your own pastor, the Right Reverend 'God Damn America' Jeremiah Wright. It is a matter of record that this has been your church for over 20 years. It is a matter of record that you were married there by this very pastor, and that your children were baptized there. The good Reverend saw fit to visit Khadafy in Libya with you and to give a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, of all people. We have all now seen excerpts of his sermons all over the airwaves by now. And you have publicly stated that this man IS your 'spiritual mentor'.
BUT, your pastor is NOT the reason I am NOT voting for you. His words were disturbing enough, but it is your own HUGE church congregation, seen jumping, hooting and howling to his words in the background that disturb me the most. And please don't tell me you attended church there and never once heard a 'discouraging word' in the 20 years you attended there. Don't tell me, that in addition to the good reverend, that you are now not having anything to do with all those other people seen hooting and howling out in the audience in the background of his fiery tirades.
Even Oprah Winfrey got disgusted and walked out. I am no Oprah fan, but still she did the right thing.
Now YOU look me in the eye and ask me to believe that you never heard such language in all the years you attended there ! This is like me telling you that I attended dozens of Klan rallys and never once heard the 'N' word. Yep. And Bill Clinton 'did not inhale'.
Yes, Mr. Obama, we all have friends who have said stupid things that embarrassed us, but NOW you have asked me to believe something that is so incredibly stupid that you are telling me that I am just stupid enough to believe you. THAT is the main reason that I will never vote for you. I am deeply sorry, that in a county teeming with enormously talented African Americans who would make a good President, that the political system has chosen YOU. You are a pathetic and plastic excuse for an American, who will not even salute the Flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. God forbid you ever get near the Oval Office.
Now, did I mention Bill Clinton ?
AH YES ! This brings us to MRS. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, who this candidate really is, in spite of all the other names she may care to call herself. This 'feminist' piece of work of course would like to be referred to as MS. and we all know who wears the pant suit in that family.
MS. Clinton, (sugar), it is just as depressing to realize that there are dozens of women who would also make great Presidents. But, unfortunately, the horrible state of the selection process has selected YOU. Ms. Clinton, I'm sorry, but you could not tell the truth if we waterboarded your worthless ass !
Still you play the role of the 'embarrassed but dignified noble wife'. What utter malarky ! I am not voting for you for a world of reasons, but the main one is the same as not my voting for Senator Obama. You persistently insult my intelligence. It COULD be conceivably possible that you did not know about Monica Lewinsky, extremely remote, but possible if we stretch our imaginations a bit. But you turn around and then ask me to believe that you also did not know about Paula Jones and the legion of other women who were chewed up and spit out by your lecherous excuse for a husband. Puleese turn off this broken record !!!
But let's set aside your hubby's flagrant pecadillos. The real reason I will never vote for you is that I don't think the country can survive EIGHT MORE YEARS of Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Sandy Berger stuffing his socks with classified intelligence, Janet Reno's goon squad, and the myriad other corruptions that seem to stick to you like your ugly face. So our former President can't keep his dick in his pants. The REAL issue is that he committed perjury under oath when he lied about it and the pathetically-attempted coverup that followed. Like you, he is totally incapable of telling the truth. He could not do it if you tortured him, and in voting for you, we would get the BOTH of you, all over again. The same folks who could have taken out Osama Bin Laden over 3,000 dead Americans ago !
And please stop telling me that you have '8 years of experience' to lead us. You were the freakin' first lady already, not the Commander in Chief. Jeez ! The sum of your 'experience' is that of the most worrisome and incompetent meddling in the history of the White House. You even cursed your pitiful staff and the Secret Service agents who were and still are unfortunately charged with risking their lives to protect your worthless, thieving hide, and all at the expense of other people who have to work for a living.
Your single pathetic platform is to finance the illegal drugs, alcoholism and bad habits of the very lowest and most irresponsible freeloaders in America and to then 'garnish the wages' (your own words) of every law-abiding and hard-working American to pay for it. This disaster you refer to as 'Universal Health Care'. Where have you been the last 30 years ? Did you not see that socialism is a failure wherever it has been tried ? Did you not notice that the Soviet Union has collapsed since it gave no reward to those who worked the hardest for the fruits of their own labors to pay for those who will not ??
It is interesting to see all the dead bodies that you and your hubby have left in your wake. Suicides, mysterious deaths, cover-ups that make Richard Nixon look like a rank amateur. The utter contempt and unbelievable arrogance of some of your strongest supporters, most notably the recently resigned and disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzer, the epitome of hypocritical and malevolent arrogance gone wild, one of your most ardent, wealthy and powerful political supporters. A man the news media refuses to admit IS a 'super delegate' in your own political machine, a fine example of your own 'adopted' state of New York. No wonder you moved there to run for Senator ! The environment there is perfect for the likes of you !
Yes, I would vote for a woman, but I will NOT vote for YOU !
Which leaves us with Senator John McCain.
John, you are a flawed man. You are a bit old, a bit looney, and you have a notoriously bad temper. This perfectly qualifies you, in my humble opinion, to lead us for the next eight years. I WANT your trembling hand on the nuclear button.
Think about it.
We have Kim Jong IL, Chavez and Ahmadenijad all running around like lunatics, threatening America and threatening to plunge the world into nuclear Armageddon. We have Putin and the Chinese blustering and rattling their sabres at us. I want John McCain in the Oval Office and I want him to be really pissed off at all these other nut jobs around the planet.
John, once you are elected, I want you to go into the Oval Office and throw one of your perfect FITS. Jump up and down and throw something through a plate glass window. Rip the drapes down and foam at the mouth a bit. And I want the whole thing on camera so that Ahmadinejad can see it. I want ALL of these 'world leaders' to lay awake at night and to break out in a cold sweat every time they think of messing with the United States of America.
I want the nuclear button sitting right next to the alarm clock on your night stand. I want pictures of this to be sent to Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and those other folks in sheets, the Saudis.
On the domestic front, poor John did try and reach across the aisle to the opposition in a desperate effort to compromise and to get the Congress to do something. You may not agree with his efforts, but at least he TRIED. For all his efforts, all he got handed to him was his head in a basket. The liberals are pissed at him and the conservatives are pissed at him. Just my kinda guy.
I predict that John will select Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Good choice. I want a JEW whose memory of the Holocaust is still fresh in his mind and who is royally pissed off at all of these towel-headed morons in the Middle East to be the next in line if something should happen to John. Shalom, Vice President Joe. One heartbeat from the Oval Office.
Finally. John McCain knows on a most personal level what it is to suffer horrible torture for years and to see others die, right in front of you, for their love of America. When you ask him about it, he will tell you that what he did was 'nothing special'. Even more incredibly, he states that ANY American who truly loves his country would do exactly the same as he did in that situation. You and I will have a hard time believing that, but the real point is that John McCain believes that about the 'average American', and that, dear friends and neighbors, is why I will cast my one poor ballot on election day for John McCain--warts and all.
God Bless America,
After long and serious thought, I have decided to endorse Senator John McCain for President.
I have always voted for the person and have not voted for anyone because some political party was telling me who I should vote for.
We all know the choices by now and, that said, I do believe that the process of selecting a chief executive is deeply flawed. The words 'money' and 'special intersts' come to mind, among many others.
Here's the way I see it:
Barack Obama, you are a fine public speaker. You are also an extremely liberal Senator from the State of Illinois, which has a long and rich history of political corruption of the first magnitude. You are indeed a child of that system.
You have finally insulted my intelligence far beyond my capacity to tolerate your insults. It has nothing at all to do with your skin color. As a matter of fact, it would be so COOL to finally have an African-American for President. What a great statement that would be to the entire world that we are indeed the greatest country on earth ! But, unfortunately, General Colin Powell is not running, and YOU are NOT the man for this job !
Barack baby, you want me to believe that you have never heard the sermons of your own pastor, the Right Reverend 'God Damn America' Jeremiah Wright. It is a matter of record that this has been your church for over 20 years. It is a matter of record that you were married there by this very pastor, and that your children were baptized there. The good Reverend saw fit to visit Khadafy in Libya with you and to give a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, of all people. We have all now seen excerpts of his sermons all over the airwaves by now. And you have publicly stated that this man IS your 'spiritual mentor'.
BUT, your pastor is NOT the reason I am NOT voting for you. His words were disturbing enough, but it is your own HUGE church congregation, seen jumping, hooting and howling to his words in the background that disturb me the most. And please don't tell me you attended church there and never once heard a 'discouraging word' in the 20 years you attended there. Don't tell me, that in addition to the good reverend, that you are now not having anything to do with all those other people seen hooting and howling out in the audience in the background of his fiery tirades.
Even Oprah Winfrey got disgusted and walked out. I am no Oprah fan, but still she did the right thing.
Now YOU look me in the eye and ask me to believe that you never heard such language in all the years you attended there ! This is like me telling you that I attended dozens of Klan rallys and never once heard the 'N' word. Yep. And Bill Clinton 'did not inhale'.
Yes, Mr. Obama, we all have friends who have said stupid things that embarrassed us, but NOW you have asked me to believe something that is so incredibly stupid that you are telling me that I am just stupid enough to believe you. THAT is the main reason that I will never vote for you. I am deeply sorry, that in a county teeming with enormously talented African Americans who would make a good President, that the political system has chosen YOU. You are a pathetic and plastic excuse for an American, who will not even salute the Flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. God forbid you ever get near the Oval Office.
Now, did I mention Bill Clinton ?
AH YES ! This brings us to MRS. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, who this candidate really is, in spite of all the other names she may care to call herself. This 'feminist' piece of work of course would like to be referred to as MS. and we all know who wears the pant suit in that family.
MS. Clinton, (sugar), it is just as depressing to realize that there are dozens of women who would also make great Presidents. But, unfortunately, the horrible state of the selection process has selected YOU. Ms. Clinton, I'm sorry, but you could not tell the truth if we waterboarded your worthless ass !
Still you play the role of the 'embarrassed but dignified noble wife'. What utter malarky ! I am not voting for you for a world of reasons, but the main one is the same as not my voting for Senator Obama. You persistently insult my intelligence. It COULD be conceivably possible that you did not know about Monica Lewinsky, extremely remote, but possible if we stretch our imaginations a bit. But you turn around and then ask me to believe that you also did not know about Paula Jones and the legion of other women who were chewed up and spit out by your lecherous excuse for a husband. Puleese turn off this broken record !!!
But let's set aside your hubby's flagrant pecadillos. The real reason I will never vote for you is that I don't think the country can survive EIGHT MORE YEARS of Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Sandy Berger stuffing his socks with classified intelligence, Janet Reno's goon squad, and the myriad other corruptions that seem to stick to you like your ugly face. So our former President can't keep his dick in his pants. The REAL issue is that he committed perjury under oath when he lied about it and the pathetically-attempted coverup that followed. Like you, he is totally incapable of telling the truth. He could not do it if you tortured him, and in voting for you, we would get the BOTH of you, all over again. The same folks who could have taken out Osama Bin Laden over 3,000 dead Americans ago !
And please stop telling me that you have '8 years of experience' to lead us. You were the freakin' first lady already, not the Commander in Chief. Jeez ! The sum of your 'experience' is that of the most worrisome and incompetent meddling in the history of the White House. You even cursed your pitiful staff and the Secret Service agents who were and still are unfortunately charged with risking their lives to protect your worthless, thieving hide, and all at the expense of other people who have to work for a living.
Your single pathetic platform is to finance the illegal drugs, alcoholism and bad habits of the very lowest and most irresponsible freeloaders in America and to then 'garnish the wages' (your own words) of every law-abiding and hard-working American to pay for it. This disaster you refer to as 'Universal Health Care'. Where have you been the last 30 years ? Did you not see that socialism is a failure wherever it has been tried ? Did you not notice that the Soviet Union has collapsed since it gave no reward to those who worked the hardest for the fruits of their own labors to pay for those who will not ??
It is interesting to see all the dead bodies that you and your hubby have left in your wake. Suicides, mysterious deaths, cover-ups that make Richard Nixon look like a rank amateur. The utter contempt and unbelievable arrogance of some of your strongest supporters, most notably the recently resigned and disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzer, the epitome of hypocritical and malevolent arrogance gone wild, one of your most ardent, wealthy and powerful political supporters. A man the news media refuses to admit IS a 'super delegate' in your own political machine, a fine example of your own 'adopted' state of New York. No wonder you moved there to run for Senator ! The environment there is perfect for the likes of you !
Yes, I would vote for a woman, but I will NOT vote for YOU !
Which leaves us with Senator John McCain.
John, you are a flawed man. You are a bit old, a bit looney, and you have a notoriously bad temper. This perfectly qualifies you, in my humble opinion, to lead us for the next eight years. I WANT your trembling hand on the nuclear button.
Think about it.
We have Kim Jong IL, Chavez and Ahmadenijad all running around like lunatics, threatening America and threatening to plunge the world into nuclear Armageddon. We have Putin and the Chinese blustering and rattling their sabres at us. I want John McCain in the Oval Office and I want him to be really pissed off at all these other nut jobs around the planet.
John, once you are elected, I want you to go into the Oval Office and throw one of your perfect FITS. Jump up and down and throw something through a plate glass window. Rip the drapes down and foam at the mouth a bit. And I want the whole thing on camera so that Ahmadinejad can see it. I want ALL of these 'world leaders' to lay awake at night and to break out in a cold sweat every time they think of messing with the United States of America.
I want the nuclear button sitting right next to the alarm clock on your night stand. I want pictures of this to be sent to Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and those other folks in sheets, the Saudis.
On the domestic front, poor John did try and reach across the aisle to the opposition in a desperate effort to compromise and to get the Congress to do something. You may not agree with his efforts, but at least he TRIED. For all his efforts, all he got handed to him was his head in a basket. The liberals are pissed at him and the conservatives are pissed at him. Just my kinda guy.
I predict that John will select Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Good choice. I want a JEW whose memory of the Holocaust is still fresh in his mind and who is royally pissed off at all of these towel-headed morons in the Middle East to be the next in line if something should happen to John. Shalom, Vice President Joe. One heartbeat from the Oval Office.
Finally. John McCain knows on a most personal level what it is to suffer horrible torture for years and to see others die, right in front of you, for their love of America. When you ask him about it, he will tell you that what he did was 'nothing special'. Even more incredibly, he states that ANY American who truly loves his country would do exactly the same as he did in that situation. You and I will have a hard time believing that, but the real point is that John McCain believes that about the 'average American', and that, dear friends and neighbors, is why I will cast my one poor ballot on election day for John McCain--warts and all.
God Bless America,
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Wilkins Ice Shelf Con Job
By John McLean
On 25 March the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) jointly published a press statement declaring that the Wilkins Ice Shelf “has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica.” I’ve looked at relevant public data and I’m undecided whether this statement was a gross exaggeration, an inept interpretation of the evidence or borderline fraud, because I can see nothing about the collapse to indicate that it was anything but a natural event.
Firstly, there were no other reports of recent collapses in this part of the Antarctic during what the end of the (southern) summer melt period. If climate was the major cause then surely we would have seen other instances of ice shelf disintegration, shelves such as the nearby King George IV shelf or the several shelves along the Bellinghausen Sea just 500km to the west. Secondly and more importantly, there is nothing in the observational data to suggest a dramatic recent change in climatic conditions. The NSIDC/BAS press statement, grandly titled “Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World”, said “In the past 50 years, the western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced the biggest temperature increase on Earth, rising by 0.5 degree Celsius (0.9 degree Fahrenheit) per decade.” By accident or design that press release omitted some very vital details about that increase, details that show the warming to have very minor effect and that the likely cause of recent temperature change is quite natural.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf is located about half way along the western (i.e. Pacific) side of the Antarctic Peninsula, that tongue of land stretching towards South America and reaching latitudes comparable with central Alaska (or for European readers, the Finnish city of Oulu). The NSIDC photographs of the Wilkins Ice Shelf give a clear indication of the normal cycle of events and show a lot about the collapse. The distinct line indicates the natural boundary of thicker pack ice and thinner sea ice. The area indicated as being reformed appears to be part of an old collapse that sea ice has progressively filled. The ice in this region is rougher than the long-term pack ice.
Image is for January 15, 2008, prior to the partial break-up. See larger image here
A plausible hypothesis is that wind and wave conditions during the second quarter of 2007 caused internal forces that opened an old weakness in the ice. Perhaps that weakness was caused by undercutting wave action back in 2004 and the sea ice has until now had braced the pack ice. The hypothesis of previous bracing is supported by the press statement, which said “Satellite images indicate that the Wilkins began its collapse on February 28; data revealed that a large iceberg, 41 by 2.5 kilometers (25.5 by 1.5 miles), fell away from the ice shelf’s southwestern front, triggering a runaway disintegration of 405 square kilometers (160 square miles) of the shelf interior”. One collapse apparently triggered another, which is what we’d expect from bracing. This begs the question of when the Wilkins Ice Shelf last lost ice from its southwestern edge and whether the recent collapse was not some kind of “catch up” of natural processes.
There are many possible causes for this loss of ice, which in itself is hardly a momentous and unknown event, but it seems that neither NSIDC nor BAS were inclined to look beyond the reasons that we all recognize as being likely to interest the news media. If NSIDC or BAS have evidence that the ice shelf collapsed due to man-made warming then they need to produce it very quickly. Until that happens I will continue to believe that their great hype about man-made climate change is no more than a con job. It grabbed some brief media attention but now we can go back to observing falling temperatures and a very poor correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide concentration, two factors that unfortunately for many believers threaten to undermine the claims of man-made warming.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf_con.pdf
On 25 March the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) jointly published a press statement declaring that the Wilkins Ice Shelf “has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica.” I’ve looked at relevant public data and I’m undecided whether this statement was a gross exaggeration, an inept interpretation of the evidence or borderline fraud, because I can see nothing about the collapse to indicate that it was anything but a natural event.
Firstly, there were no other reports of recent collapses in this part of the Antarctic during what the end of the (southern) summer melt period. If climate was the major cause then surely we would have seen other instances of ice shelf disintegration, shelves such as the nearby King George IV shelf or the several shelves along the Bellinghausen Sea just 500km to the west. Secondly and more importantly, there is nothing in the observational data to suggest a dramatic recent change in climatic conditions. The NSIDC/BAS press statement, grandly titled “Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World”, said “In the past 50 years, the western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced the biggest temperature increase on Earth, rising by 0.5 degree Celsius (0.9 degree Fahrenheit) per decade.” By accident or design that press release omitted some very vital details about that increase, details that show the warming to have very minor effect and that the likely cause of recent temperature change is quite natural.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf is located about half way along the western (i.e. Pacific) side of the Antarctic Peninsula, that tongue of land stretching towards South America and reaching latitudes comparable with central Alaska (or for European readers, the Finnish city of Oulu). The NSIDC photographs of the Wilkins Ice Shelf give a clear indication of the normal cycle of events and show a lot about the collapse. The distinct line indicates the natural boundary of thicker pack ice and thinner sea ice. The area indicated as being reformed appears to be part of an old collapse that sea ice has progressively filled. The ice in this region is rougher than the long-term pack ice.
Image is for January 15, 2008, prior to the partial break-up. See larger image here
A plausible hypothesis is that wind and wave conditions during the second quarter of 2007 caused internal forces that opened an old weakness in the ice. Perhaps that weakness was caused by undercutting wave action back in 2004 and the sea ice has until now had braced the pack ice. The hypothesis of previous bracing is supported by the press statement, which said “Satellite images indicate that the Wilkins began its collapse on February 28; data revealed that a large iceberg, 41 by 2.5 kilometers (25.5 by 1.5 miles), fell away from the ice shelf’s southwestern front, triggering a runaway disintegration of 405 square kilometers (160 square miles) of the shelf interior”. One collapse apparently triggered another, which is what we’d expect from bracing. This begs the question of when the Wilkins Ice Shelf last lost ice from its southwestern edge and whether the recent collapse was not some kind of “catch up” of natural processes.
There are many possible causes for this loss of ice, which in itself is hardly a momentous and unknown event, but it seems that neither NSIDC nor BAS were inclined to look beyond the reasons that we all recognize as being likely to interest the news media. If NSIDC or BAS have evidence that the ice shelf collapsed due to man-made warming then they need to produce it very quickly. Until that happens I will continue to believe that their great hype about man-made climate change is no more than a con job. It grabbed some brief media attention but now we can go back to observing falling temperatures and a very poor correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide concentration, two factors that unfortunately for many believers threaten to undermine the claims of man-made warming.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf_con.pdf
Friday, March 14, 2008
Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
Its about time Al Gore is made out to be a complete fraud!
Global Warming is a huge boondoggle!!
Global Warming is a huge boondoggle!!
Barack Hussain Obama
Will the real Barack Hussain Obama please stand up?
If you are paying attention, the man behind the “Change” and “Yes we can” mantra is making it’s way to the front. Follow the man’s actions over the last 20 years and you will find a pattern of Hate for America. His chosen spiritual mentor who is a racist, who hates America, who hates the government, and Hates white people. Obama may try to claim he is simply a member of the church. Not quite, He gives large sums of money supporting the leader of this church promoting hate in this country. He chose this pastor to baptize his children. He also chose a sermon as a title for his best selling book.
Obama’s voting record also reveals quite a bit.
A bill giving the Intelligence groups the power needed to defend this country he voted NO.
A bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program he voted YES
The bill extending the Homeland Security Act – He didn’t Vote
A cloture motion killing Immigration reform – Yes
The bill funding the Iraq war. – NO
Two bills funding the Iraq war only with a deadline for withdrawal. – Yes
This is just a small sample.
Some more info:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNEfEBYIZs
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://www.tucc.org/
If you are paying attention, the man behind the “Change” and “Yes we can” mantra is making it’s way to the front. Follow the man’s actions over the last 20 years and you will find a pattern of Hate for America. His chosen spiritual mentor who is a racist, who hates America, who hates the government, and Hates white people. Obama may try to claim he is simply a member of the church. Not quite, He gives large sums of money supporting the leader of this church promoting hate in this country. He chose this pastor to baptize his children. He also chose a sermon as a title for his best selling book.
Obama’s voting record also reveals quite a bit.
A bill giving the Intelligence groups the power needed to defend this country he voted NO.
A bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program he voted YES
The bill extending the Homeland Security Act – He didn’t Vote
A cloture motion killing Immigration reform – Yes
The bill funding the Iraq war. – NO
Two bills funding the Iraq war only with a deadline for withdrawal. – Yes
This is just a small sample.
Some more info:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNEfEBYIZs
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://www.tucc.org/
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/3/2008 6:11:04 PM
The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.
Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.
“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”
The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.
Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.
“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”
Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.
Stuart James and Paul Detrick also contributed to this report.
Business & Media Institute
3/3/2008 6:11:04 PM
The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.
Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.
“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”
The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.
Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.
“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”
Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.
Stuart James and Paul Detrick also contributed to this report.
Newt is spot on in this video
Newt Gingrich answers a question about terrorism. It is a great answer! Whouldn't he make a great VP for John Mccain.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Cool News About Global Warming
Cool News About Global Warming
By Bill Steigerwald
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, March 03, 2008
You've no doubt seen the stories about strange snowfalls in Saudi Arabia. A brutal winter in China. The heaviest snow cover in North America, Siberia and elsewhere since 1966.
And if you are a vigilant observer of the global warming debate, you know how inconveniently cold it is in the Arctic this winter for Al Gore and his army of climate alarmists.
But how cold is it, Johnny?
Well, NASA says recent satellite images show that the allegedly endangered polar ice cap -- which will melt completely one of these summers and kill off all the polar bears if we don't slash our greedy carbon footprints and revert to the lifestyles of medieval peasants -- has recovered to near normal coverage levels.
That's what Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, told Canada's CBC News -- the Canadian government's version of NPR/PBS - on Feb. 12.
As far as Google's search engine knows, Comiso's comforting report has appeared nowhere but in Canada.
There's even better news for polar ice-pack lovers from ice expert Gilles Langis, who says Arctic ice is now even thicker than usual in spots. A senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, he's another scientist you shouldn't expect to see talking to Anderson Cooper on the next episode of CNN's "Galaxy in Peril."
Meanwhile, in other news too climatically incorrect for U.S. mainstream media to touch, California meteorologist Anthony Watts says January 2008 was the planet's second-coldest January in 15 years.
Even more shocking, the average temperature of Earth dropped significantly from January 2007 to January 2008. As Watts explains on his Web site wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com, he determined the lower figure by crunching data from four major public and private global tracking sources.
You may remember Watts from last summer. He popped up in this paper and on Fox News because of his self-funded project to quality-check 1,221 ground weather stations around the country that are used by NASA to measure the "official" average annual temperature of the United States.
So far, Watts and his volunteers have checked out more than 500 weather stations (none in Western Pennsylvania) to see if their temperature data can be considered credible. As he details on his other Web site, weatherstation.org, nearly 70 percent of the sites fail to meet the government's own standards because they are not 100 feet from a building, are on blazing rooftops, sit next to air-conditioner exhaust fans, etc.
Watts was shocked and surprised to find such unequivocal proof that Earth's temperature has cooled in the last year, he said to me Wednesday. But he's very cautious about what it means in either the short or long run.
Calling it a "fluctuation" and "a large anomaly" compared to the 30-year running temperature average that climatologists use, he emphasized that the cold spell is "no indication that global warming is over" but does "illustrate that the driving mechanisms behind our planet's climate are still very much in control of changing the climate and that the planet's not in the death grip of CO2 just yet."
A careful, honest man of science, all Watts would say for sure was that his findings and all the strange cold-weather events of this winter prove only one thing so far -- that "Mother Nature is still in control of things, not us."
By Bill Steigerwald
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, March 03, 2008
You've no doubt seen the stories about strange snowfalls in Saudi Arabia. A brutal winter in China. The heaviest snow cover in North America, Siberia and elsewhere since 1966.
And if you are a vigilant observer of the global warming debate, you know how inconveniently cold it is in the Arctic this winter for Al Gore and his army of climate alarmists.
But how cold is it, Johnny?
Well, NASA says recent satellite images show that the allegedly endangered polar ice cap -- which will melt completely one of these summers and kill off all the polar bears if we don't slash our greedy carbon footprints and revert to the lifestyles of medieval peasants -- has recovered to near normal coverage levels.
That's what Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, told Canada's CBC News -- the Canadian government's version of NPR/PBS - on Feb. 12.
As far as Google's search engine knows, Comiso's comforting report has appeared nowhere but in Canada.
There's even better news for polar ice-pack lovers from ice expert Gilles Langis, who says Arctic ice is now even thicker than usual in spots. A senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, he's another scientist you shouldn't expect to see talking to Anderson Cooper on the next episode of CNN's "Galaxy in Peril."
Meanwhile, in other news too climatically incorrect for U.S. mainstream media to touch, California meteorologist Anthony Watts says January 2008 was the planet's second-coldest January in 15 years.
Even more shocking, the average temperature of Earth dropped significantly from January 2007 to January 2008. As Watts explains on his Web site wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com, he determined the lower figure by crunching data from four major public and private global tracking sources.
You may remember Watts from last summer. He popped up in this paper and on Fox News because of his self-funded project to quality-check 1,221 ground weather stations around the country that are used by NASA to measure the "official" average annual temperature of the United States.
So far, Watts and his volunteers have checked out more than 500 weather stations (none in Western Pennsylvania) to see if their temperature data can be considered credible. As he details on his other Web site, weatherstation.org, nearly 70 percent of the sites fail to meet the government's own standards because they are not 100 feet from a building, are on blazing rooftops, sit next to air-conditioner exhaust fans, etc.
Watts was shocked and surprised to find such unequivocal proof that Earth's temperature has cooled in the last year, he said to me Wednesday. But he's very cautious about what it means in either the short or long run.
Calling it a "fluctuation" and "a large anomaly" compared to the 30-year running temperature average that climatologists use, he emphasized that the cold spell is "no indication that global warming is over" but does "illustrate that the driving mechanisms behind our planet's climate are still very much in control of changing the climate and that the planet's not in the death grip of CO2 just yet."
A careful, honest man of science, all Watts would say for sure was that his findings and all the strange cold-weather events of this winter prove only one thing so far -- that "Mother Nature is still in control of things, not us."
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Just a timestamp to prevent future leaders from taking credit of an economic turnaround...
11 reasons Bernanke's recession lasts till 2011
Timing the next bull: Kick-start it in 2008? Or is it a long secular bear?
PAUL B. FARRELL of MarketWatch
Timing the next bull: Kick-start it in 2008? Or is it a long secular bear?
PAUL B. FARRELL of MarketWatch
Guns Save Lives
By John Stossel
Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
EXXON MOBILE PROFITS
From Neal Boortz - http://boortz.com/nuze
Recap: In 2006 Exxon reported profits of $39.5 billion. Politicians went nuts. In 2007 those profits went to $40.6 billion. Politicians went nutsier.
The reason politicians can successfully demagogue these profits is that the vast majority .. and we're talking 95% and above .. of Americans couldn't tell you the difference between a profit and a profit margin if their flat screen TVs depended on it. Simply stated, profit is the total amount you make. Profit margin is how much you make on each dollar of sales. You would think that this would be taught in our government schools ... but if you did think that you would be wrong.
So ... what has been happening to Exxon's profit margin during these record profit years? Staying about the same, that's what; around 10%. The reason their profits have been increasing is because the price of crude oil has been going up ... bring gas prices up with them ... thus increasing the dollar amount of sales. Profit – up. Profit margins – 'bout the same.By the way ... financial institutions and cosmetics companies have been enjoying higher margins... along with many other sectors of our economy.
Now .. the numbers that I presented yesterday. Pretty eye-opening. The research was posted on the Seeking Alpha website.Over the past three years Exxon Mobile has paid an average of $27 billion a year in taxes to the Imperial Federal Government. This has amounted to about 41% of Exxon's taxable income. The last year for which complete numbers on who pays what taxes are available was 2004. In 2004 there were 130 million individual tax returns filed. If you take the bottom 50% of those tax returns – 65 million of them – and add up the total amount of taxes those households paid you come up with $27.4 billion. This means that one corporation, Exxon Mobile, pays as much in taxes to the federal government as do the bottom half of individual taxpayers. How's that for paying your fair share.
There's more. The Adjusted gross income for the bottom 50% of taxpayers comes out to about $922 billion. This means that these taxpayers are paying an effective tax rate of about 3% of their adjusted gross income. Exxon? Adjusted gross income of around $67.4 billion in 2006 ... for an effective tax rate of 41%.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Global Warming Related To Sun
This isn't really a shock to someone with a brain.
Dr. Baliunas' work with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
astronomer Willie Soon suggests global warming is more directly related to solar
variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an
alternative view to what's been widely publicized in the mainstream media.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Boulder weighs 'impeach Bush'
Another reason to stay out of Boulder.
Boulder's elected leaders are expected to decide next week whether to draft and
vote on a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney.
For the past few weeks, activists have been showing up
at Boulder City Council meetings, carrying signs, handing out "impeach" pins and
asking City Council members to take up such a resolution. Similar measures have
passed in cities across the country, including Detroit and Telluride.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Iranian Nuclear Rewrite
Its sad that people are playing politics when it comes to Iran's nuclear program.
All this merely confirms what has long been obvious about Iran's intentions. No less importantly, his testimony underscores the extent to which the first NIE was at best a PR fiasco, at worst a revolt by intelligence analysts seeking to undermine current U.S. policy.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Boy wants to return to school as a girl
This is where liberalism gets us today...3rd grade boy wants to be a girl.
3rd grade boy wants to be a girl.
I don't think I'll interject my opinion on this one...
3rd grade boy wants to be a girl.
I don't think I'll interject my opinion on this one...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)